Obama, Anticolonial Hegemonist?

Dinesh D’Souza has authored what may possibly be the most ridiculous piece of Obama analysis yet written. He takes a number of decisions Obama has made on a grab-bag of issues, declares that they are “odd,” and then proceeds to explain the “oddness” he has perceived by cooking up a bizarre thesis that Obama is a die-hard anticolonialist dedicated to his father’s anticolonialist legacy. That must be why he aspired to become President of the world’s remaining superpower and military hegemon–because he secretly loathes the exercise of Western power and wants to rein it in! It must be his deeply-held anticolonialist beliefs that have led him to escalate the U.S. role in Afghanistan, launch numerous drone strikes on Pakistan, and authorize the assassination of U.S. citizens in the name of antiterrorism. Yes, zealous anticolonialism is the obvious answer. Even for D’Souza, whose last book was a strange exercise in blaming Western moral decadence for Islamic terrorism, this is simply stupid. Perhaps most painful of all is D’Souza’s condescending claim that ignorant Americans aren’t familiar with anticolonialism, and that because he is an Indian he can educate all of us about it.

Even if Obama were anticolonialist, it wouldn’t actually explain why he is “anti-business,” but then you would have to believe that he is strongly anti-business in the first place. D’Souza’s initial assumption that Obama is “the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history” is not much more than assertion. Viewed from most places in the country, Obama does not appear anti-business at all, but rather he seems pitifully captive to business interests in the worst way. One can find this reassuring or disturbing, but that is the reality.

It is hardly necessary to delve deeply into the Kenyan past or trace the roots of anticolonialist thought to discern why Obama, a thoroughly conventional center-left Democrat, favors raising taxes on wealthier people. This is a standard part of the Democratic agenda and has been for the last decade. Having opposed tax cuts for wealthier Americans earlier in the decade, Democrats are continuing to be against them. This is not mystifying. What is a little mystifying is why so many conservative pundits and writers feel the need to construct preposterous, overly-complicated Obama theories to explain what is perfectly obvious and straightforward.

D’Souza’s comments on foreign policy are even more misguided. First of all, he lumps in the Park51 project with his discussion of Obama’s foreign policy. Last I checked, Manhattan was still part of the United States, so anything Obama had to say about this really wasn’t a matter of foreign policy. Proposing to use NASA in some sort of multiculti outreach is silly, but it doesn’t reflect latent anticolonialism. It represents a clumsy and pointless exercise in showing that the U.S. “respects” Muslims at the same time that it continues to occupy and bomb Muslim countries and subsidize and arm states that subject Muslims to political repression. It is an easy gesture that costs us nothing and means nothing. Given that NASA is an enormously wasteful and unnecessary government agency that serves no real purpose, I find it hard to see how making its mission as modest as possible is a bad thing.

D’Souza trots out the very tired, already old canard that Obama does not believe in American exceptionalism. Even though he repeatedly said that his life story was possible “only in America” and he has repeated countless times his belief in the uniqueness, special role and exceptional qualities of America, because of one ambiguous answer he gave in a press conference overseas his critics have managed to figure out that Obama rejects something he explicitly endorses. It should worry them that they are leaning so heavily on such a thin reed, but these critics seem oblivious to how weak their argument is.

It is appropriate that the rest of D’Souza’s argument relies on imputing an ideology to Obama, anticolonialism, that he obviously does not accept. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that D’Souza has defined anticolonialism correctly. He writes:

Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America.

That claim about the source of Western prosperity is mostly untrue, but it certainly is true that there were many colonial powers that did invade, occupy and loot countries in Asia, Africa and South America. If Obama were an “anti-colonialist” in that he regards the old colonial empires poorly, this would actually put him very much in the American tradition and specifically in the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist tradition of the Democratic Party for much of the last century. That isn’t what D’Souza is claiming. He’s claiming that Obama is a “Third World” anti-colonialist and completely divorced from the American experience.

D’Souza goes on:

Anticolonialists hold that even when countries secure political independence they remain economically dependent on their former captors.

This is hardly a controversial or strange idea. Newly independent, former colonies very often are economically dependent on their former rulers. This was true of the United States to some extent for more than a century after independence, and it has been true in many other cases. One need only look at the former Soviet Union and the continued dependence of many states on Russia as a major supplier of resources or as a major market for their goods and labor. Regardless, what do this have to do with Obama? Obama is actually a firm believer in the inevitability and desirability of global interdependence, and he seems to believe that neoliberal trade policy is an important part of this. On the whole, people who take anticolonialist arguments seriously do not like globalization or neoliberal trade policy, because they view these arrangements as exploitative, and there is zero evidence that Obama shares these views. There is substantial evidence showing that he does not share these views.

In case you hadn’t figured it out already, D’Souza makes his point explicit:

It may seem incredible to suggest that the anticolonial ideology of Barack Obama Sr. is espoused by his son, the President of the United States. That is what I am saying.

This is not incredible. It is inexcusably moronic. It is ideological Birtherism. What I mean by that is that D’Souza’s argument is another example of the embarrassing insistence coming from the right that America did not really produce Obama or the political views he holds and that the only way to understand him is to look elsewhere. For starters, it simply isn’t true that Obama “learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction.” He did not come “to view America’s military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation.” Even when U.S. policies might have given him reason to see things that way over the decades, Obama did not see things that way.

All in all, D’Souza’s article reads like a bad conspiracy theory. On Obama’s support for progressive taxation, he writes:

If Obama shares his father’s anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more.

Or it could be that he believes that taxation should be highly progressive. Which seems more plausible?

On the Park51 project:

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then again, perhaps he thinks a community center run by ecumenist Muslims that will have worship centers for Jews and Christians on private property with the overwhelming support of the local community is a remarkably peaceable and inoffensive endeavor. Which one makes more sense? Once again, this is the President who escalated the war in Afghanistan we’re talking about. If anyone is “unleashing the American bogey” from the anticolonialist perspective, it is Obama himself. While we’re on the subject, 9/11 did not push us into Iraq, and Obama would be the last one to believe that. As an opponent of the invasion, surely Obama would think that America foolishly jumped into Iraq, and he would not associate invading Iraq with 9/11, because they are not really related.

Considering how atrocious D’Souza’s argument is, why spend any time answering it? For one thing, when nonsense like this isn’t countered it tends to gain traction. Another reason is that conservative pundits and writers such as D’Souza have been indulging in so much evidence-free, ideological babbling for the last two years that many of them now seem convinced that this babbling is actually extremely serious, insightful commentary. If we are going to have anything remotely resembling an honest or informed debate over foreign policy or anything else during the remainder of Obama’s time in office, arguments like this one have to be knocked down.

In what world are you living in where you can make the statement “the overwhelming support of the local community” as it relates to the Park51 project? EVERY poll being done shows a MINIMUM of 66% OPPOSE the project to a maximum of 71%!

On top of that, your response to Dinesh D’Souza’s WELL- thought out, WELL-researched, and articulate article essentially boils down to a proverbial “Nuh Uh…!” You provide NO facts to back up your assertions that he is incorrect in his assumptions (except that you simply disagree & thus he is CLEARLY wrong…).

You say, “it simply isn’t true that Obama “learned to see America as a force for global domination and destruction.” ” Prove it! D’Souza did an excellent job in backing up his claims. You on the other hand, simply resort to the old Saul Alinsky mentality of separation and demonization of anyone you disagree with.

Your comments, “It is inexcusably moronic. It is ideological Birtherism.” and “conservative pundits and writers such as D’Souza have been indulging in so much evidence-free, ideological babbling…” simply prove what Socrates once wrote, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

“Anticolonialism is the doctrine that rich countries of the West got rich by invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America.

That claim about the source of Western prosperity is mostly untrue”

“Mostly untrue” perhaps, though an honest man on either side of that argument would have to admit that the issues are complex, the sources of information are unreliable and incomplete, and any conclusions are therefore pretty damned uncertain. The truth is most probably mixed (some westerners undoubtedly got fantastically rich (as they do today) from “invading, occupying and looting poor countries of Asia, Africa and South America”, others paid heavy costs for those policies, and still others found other ways of generating wealth, while western nations also made significant contributions towards the development of the victim nations,but we shall never really know the precise relative significances of the various interacting factors.)

One aspect of the argument which is relatively straightforward (if unpopular in the US for obvious reasons), however, is that some of the key historical drivers of US power and wealth were the theft of a relatively unexploited continent from the indigenous peoples, followed by aggressive expansion to a point of almost unparalleled geostrategic security, and consequent ability and willingness to meddle in the disastrously destructive wars of rival powers at relatively little cost. There’s probably no real need to resort to additional semi-mystical politico-economic ideas to account for US global pre-eminence in the mid-20th century, though it’s understandable that Americans in particular seem to feel that urge very strongly.

To put it in snappy internet debate terms, the reality is that US wealth and power today basically results from the theft of a continent. That is what is most significantly exceptional about the US as a nation state. As for Obama, the “American Blair”, his most defining characteristic is that of being a liar whose every act is devoted to the acquisition of personal power. He has betrayed his family roots and history in Kenya just as comprehensively as he betrayed those who voted for him in the US expecting meaningful change.

One of my favorite things about the rise of Obama is the way the least critical rightists start citing Alinsky as if it’s really, really important – like the Rosetta Stone of non-mainstream conservatives. It’s pretty funny.

“Everyone” isn’t the most powerful nation in the world, whose people and apologists make up all sorts of fables about how it got to be so rich and powerful through its unique specialness, unusual efficiency, or divine favour, and then uses said exceptionalism to justify imposing its power on the rest of the world.

The US isn’t rich and powerful because of its capitalist system, or its (arguably) slightly less distorted (but still far distant) approximation to free market economics, or its clever political structure, or its supposed “liberties”, or its Christian specialness.

America got to be rich and powerful primarily by killing people and taking their property. Those who were to become Americans weren’t even particularly better at that than most other Eurasian peoples in history – proto-American thieves and murderers just happened to be at the right time and place in history to benefit from the collision of western European societies with American societies in possession of a continent that were helpless to resist unrestricted immigration and conquest. If you accept Jared Diamond’s thesis, the Eurasian societies were always going to win out over the American ones because they had more and better domesticable animals and a more favourable and much larger geographic location.

“Mostly untrue” perhaps, though an honest man on either side of that argument would have to admit that the issues are complex, the sources of information are unreliable and incomplete, and any conclusions are therefore pretty damned uncertain.

No, it’s pretty damned certain. The colonies of Great Britain, for example, represented a tiny fraction of the Empire’s overall Gross Economic Product, and all of them except India cost far more to keep than they paid back (and India’s revenues did not even come close to the costs of paying for the rest of the Empire). Hell, the British actually traded more with the independent Latin American countries throughout the 19th century than they did with their colonies.

were the theft of a relatively unexploited continent

While there’s no question that America conquered the land and mostly drove out the natives, the idea that the continent was “relatively unexploited” is bullshit. There’s strong archaeological and historical evidence that the natives changed the environment of North America on a large scale, particularly by the use of fire.

the reality is that US wealth and power today basically results from the theft of a continent.

No, the reality is that US wealth and power today come from that fact that it was a large country that heavily industrialized during the same time that the other Great Powers were industrializing.

Compare this with Russia, which also conquered a continent over a longer period, but which didn’t spring into serious economic wealth and power until the 19th and 20th centuries (particularly after heavily industrializing under Stalin).

The US isn’t rich and powerful because of its capitalist system,

Yes, it is. The US has been the largest economy for nearly 130 years, and it has directly to do with American industrialization and capitalist development. Compare that with the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia.

America is wealthy because it was a colony of England. Canada was an English colony and also does quite well (though French Quebec is still poorer). Same with Australia. I don’t think natural resources are that important, because island countries like England & Japan are quite wealthy, as was the city-state of Hong Kong and today’s Singapore. Siberia has lots of natural resources. Africa has lots of natural resources. The middle east has lots of oil, but the one sort of first-world country there (Israel) is oil-free.

“Even for D’Souza, whose last book was a strange exercise in blaming Western moral decadence for Islamic terrorism, this is simply stupid.”

Np, that was 3 books ago. His last two books were a defense of Christianity and the afterlife. Since these two arguments are more in line with your views, could you give us your opinions on them? Is D’Souza similarly un-credible in advancing them? If not, why is the stopped clock right in this regard?

On another note, I’m not clear on how different D’Souza’s argument is from Steve Sailer’s book on Obama. Is Sailer’s argument similarly “atrocious” and worthy of such contempt? If so, why and how? If not, how does Sailer’s argument differ from D’Souza’s in a way that saves him from your scorn?

Your article is a breath of fresh air. I read D,Souza and was flabbergasted to read Newt bought his analysis of how Oboma thinks. Thank you for principled anaysis and commentary. I knew you were out there, but I don’t see you on any news pundit shows. Thanks again

We disagree. In my own lifetime I’ve seen the debate swing from the early leftist-inspired consensus that colonial exploitation made western nations rich at the expense of the victims, through the revisionist arguments (such as you raise concerning trade) seeking to diminish or eliminate the supposed profits of empire, and back again to a somewhat balanced position. There are of course ideologues on either side who argue vociferously and cogently for their own position. In the end, I personally find the middle position the most plausible (and I’m not one who necessarily chooses the middle on any issue merely because it’s the middle), but I think only a dogmatist could really claim certainty.

The sources of information are incomplete and mostly biased, and the issues are complex with multiple feedback effects. History is inherently uncertain and economics is still a dark art rather than a science, so how you expect to achieve anything approaching certainty when you combine the two, I don’t know.

“While there’s no question that America conquered the land and mostly drove out the natives, the idea that the continent was “relatively unexploited” is bullshit. There’s strong archaeological and historical evidence that the natives changed the environment of North America on a large scale, particularly by the use of fire.”

That doesn’t change the fact that American reserves of minerals and available underexploited farming land (whether because the existing peoples had been pastoral nomads or because they had been exterminated or driven out) were vast, compared to the thoroughly exploited Eurasian continent, where unexploited resources were only unexploited if they were inaccessible. Most of the vast influx of New World silver and gold that flooded world markets and drove the growth in world trade was mined, not looted.

“No, the reality is that US wealth and power today come from that fact that it was a large country that heavily industrialized during the same time that the other Great Powers were industrializing.

Compare this with Russia, which also conquered a continent over a longer period, but which didn’t spring into serious economic wealth and power until the 19th and 20th centuries (particularly after heavily industrializing under Stalin). ”
….
“Yes, it is. The US has been the largest economy for nearly 130 years, and it has directly to do with American industrialization and capitalist development. Compare that with the Soviet Union and Tsarist Russia.”

Yes, industrialisation drove a vast increase in power for industrialising countries. America took part in that industrialisation by virtue of its close connection to the earliest industrialising parts of the world.

But why did the US end up so much more powerful than the other industrialising powers? The parallel with Russia is instructive – unlike Russia, the US had more accessible resources (see above) and no significant strategic threats. The American Indians were not Tartars, Britain burning Washington was not Napoleon’s invasion, and Canadians and Spanish/Mexicans were not to the US what Germans, Austro-Hungarians, Turks and Brits were to Russia. As for the 20th century, that’s when the strategic security consequent upon the wholesale theft of a continent really came into its own. The US was able to watch whilst its rival powers were destroyed in disastrous wars, and to dabble in those wars from a safe distance to profit from selling to the participants and to manipulate the results to ensure its own gains.

Yes, you can find all sorts of detailed explanations after the fact about how the US economic or political system was better and that’s why the US won out. But in the end, the wealth of a new continent and subsequent strategic security combined with interference from a safe distance probably dwarfs any such effects, because wealth and security breed all sorts of social benefits that feed back into society.

To use the domestic analogy to explain what I mean:

Everyone might marvel at how successful Frank is – well fed, athletic and healthy, intelligent and informed, with the best education money could buy and a fantastic netework of contacts that mean he succeeds in any business venture (or at any rate easily floats away unscathed from any setbacks).

How did Frank get to be so successful? Some point to his good looks (from a wealthy, well fed and exercised upbringing), or to his intellectual competence (a healthy upbringing combined with an expensive education) or his business acumen (the right set of contacts and plenty of financial backing when needed). And sure, he could have thrown all those advantages away if he had been a wastrel.

But what people seem strangely determined to ignore is that the reason he had the opportunity to be successful merely by not being positively incompetent is that his uncle, Sam, was the most successful criminal gang leader in his area, making a fortune out of extortion, robberies and other various ways to profit from the destruction of other peoples’ lives.

By all means, don’t hold Frank responsible for his uncle’s crimes of the distant past, even though he has been the ultimate beneficiary. But don’t be taken in when Frank starts coming out with some bullshit about being “self-made”. And if he starts pontificating about how his family is so special and so successful that everyone else should do like they do, get out the tar and feathers.

And because it stole an entire continent from the inhabitants by killing them or simply expropriating their land.

“Canada was an English colony and also does quite well (though French Quebec is still poorer). Same with Australia.”

Canada and Australia occupied relatively marginal lands compared to the US. They are wealthy (in global terms) because they too plundered lands and resources.

“I don’t think natural resources are that important, because island countries like England & Japan are quite wealthy, as was the city-state of Hong Kong and today’s Singapore. Siberia has lots of natural resources. Africa has lots of natural resources.”

City states are something else, but Japan and Britain were not historically resource poor (any more than the rest of Eurasia). African resources are geographically inaccessible and historically were occupied by Africans who were a lot tougher to shift than the native Americans. (Though in the end that did not prevent their being exploited – the difference is that they were never killed off wholesale and replaced by a settler colonial population as was the case in the US. Apart from anything else, the disease boot was generally on the other foot when it came to Europeans marching into Africa.)

“The middle east has lots of oil”

Oil is a relatively recent issue, but ME oil producing countries are wealthy as a result. That wealth is hugely mitigated by the fact that they have to fight to hold on to it in the face of threatening neighbours and interfering superpowers who are quite prepared to overthrow leaders who try to use it for the benefit of the nation rather than for the benefit of big oil companies.

“but the one sort of first-world country there (Israel) is oil-free.”

Israel does not need resources because it is a settler colonial nation and has always been massively subsidised externally (originally by jewish nationalists and more recently by the US, which essentially underwrites its defence costs), as well as having favourable access to wealthy western markets through its high level contacts.

England has some natural resources, but island states don’t have a lot and are generally highly dependent on trade (just like city states). If you want to predict whether a polity is wealthy, you are better off looking at trade than natural resources. England doesn’t have lots of colonies today, but it is still quite wealthy. Wealthier per capita than the U.S, even without that massive continent. Canada & Australia indeed have more marginal land, but are per capita quite wealthy. Ireland was colonized rather than being a colonizer, and it was doing pretty well before the crash. I don’t know what you were referring to with “see above” about Russia. Middle eastern oil countries earn rents from oil, but it’s generally extracted by westerners and they don’t have much of an economy otherwise. In first-world countries, resource extraction is generally not that big a part of the economy. I’m not sure about the total amount of subsidy Israel receives, but I believe it is a pretty small percent of their GDP. I agree with you that trade is important for them, but of course it must be since they don’t have natural resources. Mugabe has access to the same natural resources as Ian Smith did, but he turned the breadbasket of Africa into the fastest shrinking economy in the world.

Jared Diamond’s writing is enjoyable, though Collapse had some faulty assumptions. You may or may not be interested in a free book which sets out to criticize the thesis of Guns, Germs & Steel. Personally I think there is merit to Diamond’s theory, but he never really establishes (aside from some throwaway speculations) how it led to differences within Eurasia (the largest and most populous land-mass!), which would seem to be necessary for the question he sets out to answer. So geography may not be destiny but it’s a lot more than nothing.

One thing I had intended to mention but forgot. The “moderate Arab” regimes that the U.S supports and provides military aid haven’t had to actually use it much. They don’t really have to “fight to hold onto it” because the U.S will do any fighting in their stead.

why did Obama insist on giving US tax money to the countries in South America (all former colonies) for off shore oil drilling instead of spending the money for American off-shore drilling? I don’t understand those decisions. If off shore drilling is an environmental problem that concerns him why would he promote drilling elsewhere in the world? Any explanations??? Please?

“Given that NASA is an enormously wasteful and unnecessary government agency that serves no real purpose, I find it hard to see how making its mission as modest as possible is a bad thing.”

Before you post your opinion of how wasteful and unnecessary you think NASA may be please realize the vast number of technilogical spinoffs that were/are started at NASA, along with the Scientific and Environmental work done by the agency. All on less than 1% of the Federal Budget. I’ll also have you know that at least within the past 5 years the agency has become the leanest and most greenest agency in order to continue to do all this and more without the need for add’l funding.

To everyone on this board. I am an extremely left-wing liberal on the political spectrum. That being said, this is my first time visiting American Conservative and I am truly amazed by what I have found. Over the past couple of election cycles I have grown increasingly despondent over the state of the Republican party and their decent into a hateful, paranoid, conspiracy fueled, proudly ignorant, self-righteous, your with us or against us Fox News coma. It has made me and many of my friends truly question the idea of American exceptionalism and our ability as a country to overcome our serious challenges. How can I have a rational discussion about what we need to do as a country with someone who truly believes that the leader of my party (the President) is an anti-colonial, foreign-born, America hater who must be opposed on every issue, regardless of merits? Oh and I forgot, he’s a socialist, nay, a communist!
So it is with great pleasure that I find that there are thoughtful people on the opposite side of the political spectrum that reject the craziness. I appreciate that there are those on the other side that see that liberals do not take the positions we take because we hate America, we are anti-white, we hate the rich, because all we want is “gifts” or because we are lazy good for nothing SOBs. Reasonable people can disagree on policy. I was truly beginning to believe that you guys didn’t exist (my fault for not finding you sooner). Keep up the good work!
As for the left-wing side of the equation, we have our crazies too. Please don’t take them too seriously, lets engage on the issues.
On another note, it is interesting to see how much a liberal like me agrees with many of the policy positions that people on this site take. I’ve always thought that the two ends of the political spectrum might actually be a tied together to form a continuous loop, with deep conservatism and liberalism closer on a lot of issues than it would seem. Perhaps that is blasphemy – perhaps not. I’ll keep reading to find out!